Subject: dubious assumptions about IPv6 (was death of the Internet)

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 12:29:05 -0500

Since the topic of IPv6 transition seems to have surfaced in this
discussion, I thought I'd send a pointer to my argument as to why a lot
of the common assumptions about IPv6 transitions are dubious.  

I put these things in a web page to avoid needing to re-type the same
arguments over and over, and because I think I express things more
effectively in this form than when trying to finish an email message on
a difficult topic before going to X  (where X is one of
{work,lunch,dinner,bed}).  One downside is that the web page isn't
directly tailored to a specific list discussion - so some of the 
assumptions listed on the web page are apropos to the recent discussion
on this list while others are not.

http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/opinions/ipv6/dubious-assumptions.html

Responses should go to my private email address if you want me to see
them - I've disabled my subscription to the ietf list and am currently
only scanning the archives once every few days.  (In general, it's a bad
idea to assume that you know whether someone will receive a reply sent
to the entire list.)

---

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 20:22:51 -0800

> Mark Smith wrote:
> Does SIP with STUN use similar techniques to Skype
> to get around two NATted VoIP peers ?

I have to confess that I have not read STUN in much detail, but I
understand that one of the "novelties" is that the STUN server replies
to the originating SIP client what its public address is, enabling the
SIP client to embed the valid public address in the packet instead of
the only one it knows which is RFC1918. Combine with what I just
posted...

I encourage my competitors to keep wasting their energy whining about
how NAT breaks their apps: as long as I have an ample supply of
16-years-old that can code how to traverse it I don't have a problem
with it.

Michel.